City of Superior, Nebraska Comprehensive Development Plan
Bobbi Pettit, AICP
bobbi@fiveruleplanning.comJordan Duffin Wong, Ph.D
jordan@fiveruleplanning.comJanuary 2026
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the friendship, support, and cooperation of the residents of Superior. We would like to express special gratitude to the following:
City Council
Mayor Rick Disney, Rodney Rogers, Sandra Foote, Trenton Morris, Craig Hale, Levi Gunn, and Darrell Brandt.
Planning Commission
Chairperson Kim Young, Vice Chairperson Carl Suchsland, Theresa Erickson, Emily Kirchhoff, Logan Christiancy, Angela Henderson, Jim Mitchell, and Calvin Hayes.
City Administration
City Administrator Andrew Brittenham, City Attorney John Hodge, and City Clerk Brenda Corman.
1 Context
Responsibility to Plan
Per Nebraska Revised Statutes (NRS) 19-901(1), municipal governments in Nebraska are granted the authority to regulate land use within their jurisdiction:
For the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community, the city council of a city of the first class or city of the second class or the village board of trustees of a village may adopt zoning regulations which regulate and restrict the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lots that may be occupied, the size of yards, courts, and other open spaces, the density of population, and the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for trade, industry, residence, or other purposes.
Building the Plan
The Superior Plan is organized into chapters based upon the guidance and requirements listed within NRS 19-903:
- A land-use element which designates the proposed general distributions, general location, and extent of the uses of land for agriculture, housing, commerce, industry, recreation, education, public buildings and lands, and other categories of public and private use of land;
- The general location, character, and extent of existing and proposed major roads, streets, and highways, and air and other transportation routes and facilities;
- The general location, type, capacity, and area served of present and projected or needed community facilities including recreation facilities, schools, libraries, other public buildings, and public utilities and services;
- When a new comprehensive plan or a full update to an existing comprehensive plan is developed, an energy element which: Assesses energy infrastructure and energy use by sector, including residential, commercial, and industrial sectors; evaluates utilization of renewable energy sources; and promotes energy conservation measures that benefit the community. This subdivision shall not apply to villages; and
- (a) When next amended after January 1, 1995, an identification of sanitary and improvement districts, subdivisions, industrial tracts, commercial tracts, and other discrete developed areas which are or in the future may be appropriate subjects for annexation and (b) a general review of the standards and qualifications that should be met to enable the municipality to undertake annexation of such areas. Failure of the plan to identify subjects for annexation or to set out standards or qualifications for annexation shall not serve as the basis for any challenge to the validity of an annexation ordinance.
Jurisdiction of the Plan
Per NRS 17-1001 (1), the geographical area covered by the City of Superior Comprehensive Plan includes all land within a one-mile area encompassing the city, “the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction of a city shall consist of the unincorporated area one mile beyond and adjacent to its corporate boundaries.”
Map 1.1: Superior Municipal Boundary and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction displays Superior’s corporate boundary and zoning jurisdiction, which includes all lands within the City of Superior and its One-Mile Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). Superior’s land use policies govern all lands within the city as well as the ETJ.1
Map 1.1: Superior Municipal Boundary and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
2 Existing Land Use
The existing land use (ELU) map provides a visual representation of how land in Superior is being used. It is a snapshot of the current state of the city’s existing land use patterns and helps with the decision-making processes related to land development, zoning regulation, and infrastructure funding.
Map 2.1: Superior Existing Land Use categorizes different areas – typically parcels of land – based on their primary uses today. This map serves as a baseline for inventorying characteristics of Superior that the community hopes to maintain, as well as what the community hopes to change in the next decade. It assists with identifying areas of change or potential growth, as well as with making informed decisions about future development and zoning regulations.2
Table 2.1 summarizes the distribution of land in Superior by land use category. There are six categories: agricultural, commercial, industrial, residential, exempt, and state centrally assessed. Within city limits, commercial and residential uses make up three quarters of all land area, while exempt makes up another 15 percent. Agricultural land just under seven percent, while industrial and state centrally assessed land make up the remainder.
Table 2.1: Existing Land Use - Within Superior City Limits
| Land Use | Parcels | Area (Square Acres) | Percent of Total Area |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agricultural | 38 | 74.44 | 6.74% |
| Commercial | 197 | 364.42 | 33.02% |
| Industrial | 3 | 25.01 | 2.27% |
| Residential | 1099 | 468.62 | 42.47% |
| Exempt | 122 | 168.91 | 15.31% |
| State Centrally Assessed | 4 | 3.77 | 0.19% |
Table 2.2 shows the land use outside of city limits in the extraterritorial jurisdiction. Here, the vast majority of land use is agricultural. While residents and landowners living here do not elect city officials or pay property tax to the city, their lands are nonetheless important to the Superior’s future growth for several reasons:
- Growth and Expansion: planning for these adjacent lands will allow the city to make decisions with future growth and expansion plans in mind. As Superior grows, it may annex nearby land to meet demand for housing, infrastructure, and services.
- Infrastructure and Utilities: planning ahead helps with efficiently extending existing infrastructure to include water and sanitary extensions, as well as connected street networks.
- Economic Development: the city’s adjacent lands will be needed to support the expansion and recruitment of businesses and industries providing goods, services, and jobs.
- Environmental Considerations: cities need to consider the environmental impact of adjacent lands. Planning can help identify areas with ecological value, sensitive habitats, or natural resources that should be protected from inappropriate development. It allows cities to implement measures for sustainable land management, conservation, and the mitigation of potential environmental risks.
Table 2.2: Existing Land Use - Within Superior Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
| Land Use | Parcels | Area (Square Acres) | Percent of Total Area |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agricultural | 190 | 6137.97 | 77.56% |
| Commercial | 198 | 455.42 | 5.75% |
| Industrial | 7 | 108.81 | 1.37% |
| Residential | 1103 | 474.78 | 6.00% |
| Exempt | 176 | 730.45 | 9.22% |
| State Centrally Assessed | 4 | 6.79 | 0.09% |
3 Housing Assessment
In this chapter, we document the condition, status, and needs for housing in Superior. Drawing on a variety of data from the Nuckolls County Property Assessor, various government agencies, and original surveys of Superior residents, we show that Superior has a long-term trend of population decline and housing structures in need of improvement.
Condition of Housing Structures
The status and condition of structures are categorized by the Nuckolls County property assessor. Table 3.1 shows how the assessor has rated these parcels in Superior:
Table 3.1: Superior Residential Land Use Conditions
| Condition | Parcels | Percent of Total Parcels | Percent of Total Area (Square Acres) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Worn-Out | 53 | 5.83% | 54.33% |
| Worn-Out – Badly Worn | 2 | 0.22% | 0.33% |
| Badly Worn | 123 | 13.53% | 12.00% |
| Badly Worn – Average | 109 | 11.99% | 9.08% |
| Average | 473 | 52.04% | 54.32% |
| Average – Good | 69 | 7.59% | 8.59% |
| Good | 78 | 8.58% | 9.71% |
| Good – Very Good | 0 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Very Good | 2 | 0.22% | 0.33% |
Remarks on Housing Conditions
- Majority of Housing is in Average Condition: The most common rating for residential structures in Superior is “average,” indicating that the majority of homes are habitable and maintain a standard level of functionality. However, they may lack modern updates or show signs of aging and general wear. This suggests stable but aging housing stock, which requires investment in maintenance or modernization over the next decade.
- Significant Proportion of “Worn-Out” and “Badly Worn” Housing: Almost 20% of the housing stock are “Worn-Out” or “Badly Worn,” which is a red flag. These homes may have serious deficiencies in systems (roofing, plumbing, electrical, foundation) or visible deterioration. This group likely represents homes that are still occupied but nearing the point where repairs or renovations are critical. This condition group is the most at-risk of becoming “Worn-Out” without intervention.
- Limited “Good” Condition Properties: Only nine percent of houses are rated as “Good” or better. There is a small segment of housing stock that is newer, well-maintained, or recently renovated. This could indicate limited recent investment in high-quality residential development or upgrades. It highlights the need for incentives to support home improvement or new builds.
- Overall Implications for Housing Policy: The data paint a picture of a largely functional housing stock, but one that is aging and increasingly deteriorated. The low percentage of “Good” homes and the notable share of ``Badly Worn” ones suggest that Superior will benefit from targeted housing rehabilitation programs, especially for owner-occupied homes in poor condition. Grant funding and development efforts could be focused on preventing the decline of average-rated homes while prioritizing repairs for the 13% Badly Worn stock.
Superior residents have expressed frustration with the quality of residential neighborhoods. In a 2025 survey, they expressed mixed satisfaction with vacated and dilapidated houses in their neighborhood, but strong negative sentiment with occupied nuisance properties and neighborhood overall appearances. Figure 3.1 shows the distribution of responses to these questions.
One priority for policymakers is to encourage the redevelopment or demolition of such properties to improve community appearance. In the same survey, 75 percent of respondents indicated that “beautification should be a priority for the City of Superior.” 86 percent of respondents supported “ongoing demolition of uninhabitable homes”, and 80 percent supported “enforcing nuisance and other property maintenance codes for all properties.” Finally, 54 percent supported “establishing additional standards to improve the exterior appearance of buildings and properties along the city’s busiest streets,” perhaps recognizing that the beautification of Superior affects not only residents but also businesses and visitors.
Superior residents also described which features of neglected properties they consider problematic. Of six categories – abandoned vehicles, broken windows, yard debris, overgrown landscaping, peeling paint, and vacant homes – all six had at least a third described as “definitely a problem”, while just about half of respondents characterized each as “sometimes a problem.” Figure 3.2 shows the distribution of responses to these questions.
Age of Housing Structures
The ages of structures are categorized by the Nuckolls County property assessor. Table 3.2 shows the age distribution of structures in Superior.
Table 3.2
| Era Built | Parcels | Percent of Total Parcels | Percent of Total Area (Square Acres) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Before 1900 | 32 | 3.50% | 2.47% |
| 1900-1920 | 334 | 36.54% | 30.84% |
| 1920-1940 | 200 | 21.88% | 22.34% |
| 1940-1960 | 141 | 15.42% | 10.52% |
| 1960-1980 | 139 | 15.21% | 19.58% |
| 1980-2000 | 40 | 4.38% | 5.86% |
| 20000 or later | 28 | 3.01% | 8.42% |
Remarks on Housing Age
- Dominance of Early 20th-Century Homes: The largest share of Superior’s housing stock was built between 1900 and 1960 (73.84%). The most-represented period is 1900-1920 (36.54%). The fact that many homes are more than one-hundred years old indicates a large need for ongoing maintenance and potential rehabilitation.
- Prevalence of Pre-1900 Homes: 32 homes were built before 1900 (3.50%). These homes represent historic structures, often requiring specialized upkeep and are possibly eligible for preservation incentives.
- Mid-Century Infill: Significant housing construction took place 1960 and 1980, with 139 units built. These homes are typically more modern in layout and materials, and tend to be located away from Superior’s downtown.
- Minimal Low 21st-Century Construction: Only 28 units have been built since 2000. This indicates lower levels of new development, possible barriers such as land availability, economic constraints, or infrastructure limitations, and a need for housing investment or incentives to encourage new construction.
- Overall Implications for Housing Policy: Superior’s housing inventory is largely composed of century-old homes, with little recent development. This indicates a mature and aging housing stock, suggesting a need for housing rehabilitation programs, targeted infill development, infrastructure upgrades to support new residential construction, and strategic programming to preserve historic character while meeting modern housing needs.
Community Housing Needs
Figure 3.3 shows how Superior’s population has changed over the last century. The city population peaked in the 1940s before beginning to steadily decline to about 1,800 residents today. The decline was most pronounced in the 1990s.
